DOCTRINE OF (COUNTER) REVOLUTIONARY WARFARE: Brief considerations on the French model in combating national liberation movements.
Since 1959, the French doctrine of "Counter-Revolutionary Warfare" was assimilated by the Superior War School (ESG) as a justification for the geopolitical context of the Cold War and the progressive development of social movements in Brasil.
This doctrine considers that revolutionary warfare differs from conventional warfare in its combination of politics, ideology, and military force.
Revolutionary warfare, understood as the Marxist-Leninist application and later enriched by Mao Zedong's theoretical contributions on the Chinese revolutionary process, was identified as an insurrectional instrument not only of communist movements but also of various others.
As a strategy, the French doctrine has a mirror effect. Learning from the lessons of defeats in colonial wars in Indochina and Africa, against communist and national liberation movements, it aims to combat the progression capacity of revolutionary warfare. It identifies the psychological element, the struggle for hegemony of ideas, as of fundamental importance for the effective seizure of power.
Thus, it is a matter for counter-revolutionary forces to engage in a struggle for progressive hegemony over the population through psychological warfare. In short, to prevent, through psychological and ideological factors, the emergence of activities and ideas that could feed and facilitate the co-optation of military and civilians for communist movements and national-popular aspirations.
Thus, it aims to undermine the actions of those considered enemies in order to achieve hegemony of thought, strengthen internal ideological cohesion, and weaken internal enemy cohesion.
For Brazilian military adherents at the time, it involved the development of their own counter-revolutionary doctrine, whose progressive hegemony over the population and military would make it possible to unleash the final stages of the "counter-revolutionary war," which eventually culminated in the 1964 military-corporate coup.
The political association between the military and civilian sectors, such as the UDN (National Democratic Union), is evident in their opposition to movements of communist, socialist, and labor workers united around President João Goulart's base reforms.
This opposition was manifested through the organization of anti-communist civilian movements and discrediting the actions of the government.
The Cold War and global ideological polarization were used as justification for anti-communism and for the idea of Brasil's role in the Cold War, as understood through the influence of the French doctrine and the American doctrine of national security.
There was a need for a rhetoric of military-civil unity in combating the "internal enemy" that was unleashing a "revolutionary war."
Such mobilization would require, for the military, a military intervention in civil society, coordination among all sectors of the state, and cooperation between civil society and the Armed Forces.
In this sense, the role of the military intellectual stands out in the formulation of a doctrine, ideology, and thinking about the role of the Armed Forces in Brasil and their "mission" for the historical context, where Latin America was one of the theaters of ideological dispute of the Cold War.
For these military intellectuals, developing countries needed to conceive doctrines that were suitable for their national realities and geopolitical alignment.
In the realm of law, this meant the alteration and creation of laws aimed at restricting civil rights and combating what they considered as the internal enemy, as the Brazilian capitalist democratic regime, in their view, provided "excessive guarantees" for the development of "subversive" internal agents.
In summary, the assimilation of the French doctrine of "Counter-Revolutionary Warfare" and its application in the Brazilian context during the Cold War represented not only a military strategy but also a profound transformation in the social and political fabric of the country.
The pursuit of ideological hegemony, the justification of anti-communism, and the implementation of repressive measures not only shaped the relations between the military and civilians but also redefined the boundaries of Brazilian democracy, civil rights, and the national-popular project of President João Goulart.
The legacy of this period continues to reverberate in contemporary Brazilian society, underscoring the importance of understanding the past to address the challenges of the present and the future.
REVOLUTION, SOCIALISM, AND NATIONAL TRADITION — An analysis of Mariátegui. Part 2.
In the article "NATIONALISM AND VANGUARDISM IN POLITICAL IDEOLOGY" (1925), Mariátegui deepens the debate between Creole conservatism and indigenous vanguardism in Peruvian political ideology.
Creole conservatism associates Peruvian nationality solely with Spanish and Latin influences, limiting Peru's history to four centuries.
During the colonial period, Peruvian history was often linked to the arrival of Pizarro and the foundation of Lima, ignoring the rich indigenous heritage, such as the Inca Empire.
Creole national consciousness was strongly tied to the Spanish heritage, excluding indigenous elements from Peruvian history and tradition, as further elaborated two years later in "THE NATIONAL TRADITION" (1927).
In contrast, the indigenous vanguard seeks a Peruvian reconstruction based on indigenous heritage, breaking away from the temporally limited view of Creole conservatism and its association with conquest and colonialism.
Revolutionary indigenist thinkers do not view the Inca past as a mere return to history, but as a foundation for Peruvian reconstruction.
They embrace a realistic and modern conception of history, considering all events and historical elements that have shaped Peruvian reality over more than four centuries, without excluding indigenous elements, as often happens in the colonialist view of history.
Mariátegui also highlights the relationship between nationalism and socialism in politically or economically colonized countries like Peru.
He argues that socialism is not inherently anti-national, except within empires. In former colonies, socialism takes on a nationalist stance, opposing Western imperialism and capitalism.
For the author, the assertion of Peruvian nationality is of utmost importance, especially for those historically oppressed and dispossessed.
The Peruvian reconstruction based on indigenous heritage is seen as a way to restore the independence and dignity of those who were conquered and subjugated by the Spanish four centuries ago.
The writings of José Carlos Mariátegui resonate deeply in the history and culture of various colonized countries, finding resonance in the struggles of the working class.
His reflections on national tradition, revolution, and socialism invite us to rethink how we perceive our own history, events, movements, and prominent figures, challenging both conservative and liberal narratives that seek to restrict and distort the richness of our cultural heritage.
(Part 1)
REVOLUTION, SOCIALISM, AND NATIONAL TRADITION — An analysis of Mariátegui. Part 1.
The interconnection between tradition, socialism, and revolution represents a creative and renewing force in history. Its primary instrument and historical agent is the working class.
This relationship is therefore antagonistic to the reactionary movement that aims to freeze tradition, distorting its raison d'être and restricting "official" history and culture to the narrative and elements of the dominant class.
Those who identify as communists, socialists and thid world laborists need to remain vigilant. The historical narrative of the elites relegates popular elements to oblivion or condemnation.
The reactionary historical narrative imprisons cultural and historical elements, petrifying them and providing a distorted view of them.
In "HETERODOXY OF TRADITION" (1927), Mariátegui argues that tradition should not be erroneously associated with traditionalists. Traditionalists seek a static and inert tradition, while tradition, in its essence, is dynamic and constantly evolving.
According to the author, tradition is nurtured by those who renew and challenge it to enrich it, rather than keeping it stagnant. Those who desire a static tradition often distort it with their particular interpretation of history, seeing it as a mere extension of the past.
Mariátegui questions whether revolutionaries completely reject tradition and asserts that true revolutionaries do not act as if history "began with them." They recognize that they represent historical forces and use existing history as a basis for their actions, much like Marx used the study of bourgeois economics as the foundation for his anti-capitalist doctrine.
It is crucial to distinguish between tradition and traditionalism. Traditionalism is a conservative attitude that sees tradition as a set of inert relics and symbols. Tradition, on the other hand, is diverse and contradictory, resisting being reduced to a single concept.
To complement, different social groups interpret tradition divergently due to their political and economic interests. As noted by Marx and Engels, the dominant ideas in a given era are shaped by the ruling class that controls the means of production.
Walter Benjamin also contributes to this discussion by addressing the narrative dispute over history, in which "official" history is often defined by the ruling class.
Mariátegui argues that those less adept at recreating tradition, such as reactionary elements of the elite, often invoke it in a fictional manner.
Therefore, the true struggle does not occur between revolutionaries and tradition, but between revolutionaries and traditionalism. Revolutionaries seek to prevent society from becoming static, as a society without creativity loses its purpose and shows signs of aging and decay.
(Part 2).
